OK, I'm, confused. Some would say that's easily done, but bear with me for a moment here and you may be too. The City of Santa Monica is famous, some would say infamous, for its more than liberal and charitable approach to many segments of society. So liberally charitable that it is frequently referred to as the People's Republic of Santa Monica.

Take for example the revolt of the populace in the mid-1990s. Over time at the end of the last century, most Santa Monica residents were renters. Realizing that most of the landlords did not live in the city and thus were not voters, the resident renter/voters enacted rent control. Now, landlords can virtually only evict residents for not paying rent.

Santa Monica now has an anti-homeless ordinance, but only after a long history of favoring the homeless. As a consequence, the city does not enjoy the best reputation among tourists, but it is very popular with those who sleep on its streets and beaches, despite the issue's travails in and out of the courts.

Most recently, it has taken the position that it was not at fault for the deaths of ten people at its Farmer's Market several years ago after 86-year old George Walker ran his car into a crowd at the market, and denied the claims of the family members of those killed and the several dozen of those injured in the accident.

Santa Monica? Say it isn't so. You must have the wrong city.

Yes indeed. Despite its reputation for its liberal tendencies (while the anti-homeless ordinance discourages aggressive pan-handling, it encourages something they call 'active giving'), Santa Monica doesn't want to pay. The city's mothers and fathers fought the claims in court, and although they won the initial round at the trial court level, the court of appeal just recently reversed that ruling, exposing the city's coffers to the claims.

Liberal or not, when it comes to money, is just about everybody conservative?